Update DID Method Registry to clarify it's not an endorsement

[kdenhartog]

This is necessary because some people believe that listing a method within this registry is somehow an endorsement of the method and it's underlying technology. This clarifies this was not the case, nor was it the goal of the Working group.

---

Preview | Diff

[kdenhartog]

cc @melvincarvalho

[brentzundel]

@mprorock the requested changes have been made, and the chairs have conferred and approve. Could you re-review?

[shigeya]

Thanks for raising this PR (I came from the email thread). The added language is clear.

[mprorock]

@mprorock the requested changes have been made, and the chairs have conferred and approve. Could you re-review?

Approved

[msporny]

There are more than enough approvals/reviews for this to go in. I'm going to wait the requisite 7 days to see if there are any objections, and if not, merge the PR at that point.

[mccown]

This is a great proposal -- to explicitly state that the DID Registry is only a list of methods that are compatible with the spec / technology.

After clarifying that a listing in the registry is not an endorsement, should we look at how entries get on the list? Specifically, should entries be self-asserted, manually verified, or have an automated compatibility process?

[ChristopherA]

+1 to this proposal.

[mccown]

Before merging, I have another question. In the section "Status of This Document", it contains this sentence:

"This Group Note is endorsed by the Decentralized Identifier Working Group, but is not endorsed by W3C itself nor its Members."

Since the doc says "is endorsed" and later will say "does not act as an endorsement", does that create confusion? I'm wondering if the W3C legal dept may want to review the specific wording.

[kdenhartog]

Ahh great catch @mccown! I think a better alternative would to say it's "recognized" or "managed" by the DID WG. This language could very well be creating some confusion here. I can add this change to the PR as well when I'm back at my computer.

[kdenhartog]

This is a great proposal -- to explicitly state that the DID Registry is only a list of methods that are compatible with the spec / technology.

After clarifying that a listing in the registry is not an endorsement, should we look at how entries get on the list? Specifically, should entries be self-asserted, manually verified, or have an automated compatibility process?

I believe this is necessary as well. While I'm not a fan of utilizing a specific jurisdiction to censor the registry I absolutely believe we should be raising the bar on the requirements to be listed within the registry. I opened #433 to highlight this point because when I was an editor of this note, I noticed that I was essentially rubber-stamping methods and having to merge. I don't think the current state is an ideal situation either, so I'm all for revisiting this once a new WG is formed. Without a WG we're stuck in an interim state where large changes have to involve W3C management which would be a drain on their time. Let's discuss further in #433 and can take further action once a resolution is reached on the WG charter.

[brentzundel]

The group note "DID Specification Registries" is endorsed by the DID WG. We published it. We believe that it is a good and useful thing. In endorsing the Group Note, we endorse the policies according to which an entry can be added to the registry. Those policies explicitly do not require endorsement from the DID WG to add entries to the registry.

This means that the inclusion of a DID Method in the registry does not imply that the DID Method is endorsed by the DID WG, any more than a new DID Document property listed in the registry is endorsed by the DID WG.

[kdenhartog]

That's a great perspective @brentzundel. When I read that it made me realize the nuance here and leads me to believe this may not require any further text changes.

[brentzundel]

Multiple positive reviews, questions asked and answered, no further requests for changes or clarifications, merging.